Director of personnel: Ms. Tours has formally requested a salary adjustment on the grounds that she was denied merit ...
spiritxyzMarch 10, 2019
Why E?
So i narrowed it down to D and E, but went with the former because implication seemed vague to me. Could someone please tell me what the LSAT definition of implication means, as well as tie it in with E?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Great question. The LSAT defines implication in the same manner that is found in the dictionary, which is, "the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated."
In reading the stimulus, the director of personnel's reasoning is highly flawed. Is it more unfair to deny someone a raise that they deserve or to give somebody a raise due to a complaint supported by evidence? The argument fails to consider that if the company denies Ms. Tours' request, it would not be a good look for its merit-based reward system. This is the problem with the argument.
You said you were between (D) and (E).
(D) says, "ignores the possibility that some of the people who did receive merit increases were not entitled to them"
The problem with (D) is that it's descriptively inaccurate. The argument isn't ignoring the individuals who got raises; rather, the argument mentions that many of Ms. Tours' coworkers who received raises deserved raises less than Ms. Tours did. Thus, we can get rid of (D).
(E) says, "overlooks the implications for the integrity of the firm’s merit-based reward system of denying Ms. Tours’s request"
This is exactly the problem with the argument that we had identified above. If Ms. Tours doesn't receive a raise after providing evidence suggesting she deserves one, it doesn't matter whether or not she was complaining; this sets a bad precedent for the company's merit-based system. The consequences of this aren't considered in the argument, so this is the correct answer.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
